Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not satisfied that waterboarding is in fact torture, but if it is, then I support torture when it proves effective.

At least you identify that you are OK with it even if it is torture. This is the point of debate that I have been trying to bring out of people here for a year in countless threads on the issue. The debate about whether it is torture or not is moot. The real debate is whether you would support it regardless of how it is identified. At least you addressed this issue. Most are afraid to.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

My point was clear and obvious. This constant debate over whether waterboarding is or is not "torture" is meaningless, substanceless, and irrelevant.

Waterboarding was a technique used by CIA interrogators to extract actionable intelligence from Gitmo detainees. President Bush, having sought opinions from counsel in the Department of Justice, authorized the technique. Dear Leader, wisely or unwisely, has rescinded the authorization for the technique (for now).

I'll happily defend the technique and its use in Gitmo interrogations all day long. As I have stated in other threads, I'll defend it even if it can be shown categorically to be "torture". Calling it "torture" does not alter the ethic of its use one iota.

Thus when people go on about how they can't fathom people not calling waterboarding "torture", my response is a firm and decided "so what?"

From your viewpoint, it is "meaningless, substanceless, and irrelevant". Since the argument of some is that it is not torture, therefore it is ok, this suggests that for at least some, this is a germane issue.

At least you identify that you are OK with it even if it is torture. This is the point of debate that I have been trying to bring out of people here for a year in countless threads on the issue. The debate about whether it is torture or not is moot. The real debate is whether you would support it regardless of how it is identified. At least you addressed this issue. Most are afraid to.

Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]

The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”

[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

Twenty years seems like a fair deal I think Cheney should take it before somebody proves he approved of somebody being tortured to death.

This has absolutely zero to do with what you quoted. Some people do in fact say that waterboarding is not torture. This is what she was commenting on, not whether it worked or not, which is questionable and unprovable(ie, we do not have any way of knowing if other methods would have been as effective or more effective).

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I think it important for all that justify waterboarding to first admit that it's torture. That way, it will in some way help me feel that they are more aware, and not regurgitating talking head points.

Waterboarding = torture... there's no other way to describe it. If you don't think it is, you're not getting your information from good sources. Whether it's justified or not is a whole other issue.

“No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said... “‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

I was about 10 when Vietnam ended. Most of the people commenting on this subject where younger. Vietnam has nothing to do with this, though I can see why you would want to deflect attention away from the now, and onto Vietnam.

It has everything to do with the asinine Liberal assertion that our troops will be at greater risk because of the use of these methods.

My point was clear and obvious. This constant debate over whether waterboarding is or is not "torture" is meaningless, substanceless, and irrelevant.

Waterboarding was a technique used by CIA interrogators to extract actionable intelligence from Gitmo detainees. President Bush, having sought opinions from counsel in the Department of Justice, authorized the technique. Dear Leader, wisely or unwisely, has rescinded the authorization for the technique (for now).

I'll happily defend the technique and its use in Gitmo interrogations all day long. As I have stated in other threads, I'll defend it even if it can be shown categorically to be "torture". Calling it "torture" does not alter the ethic of its use one iota.

Thus when people go on about how they can't fathom people not calling waterboarding "torture", my response is a firm and decided "so what?"

I have a slight correction to the above CORRECT assertions; these methods were conducted on a VERY select FEW detainees, some say it was THREE, because they were resisting other less intrusive methods.

It is not like we wantonly submitted every detainee to these methods which is the impression one gets when reading the Liberal media reports on the topic.